Written by Sulaiman Razvi
“Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” is commonly translated as “the world is one family” and is often invoked to portray Hinduism as a faith rooted in universal brotherhood. Hindus who proclaim this ideal can broadly be divided into two groups. The first genuinely practice it. They do not discriminate on the basis of caste or religion and regard people of all backgrounds as fellow human beings. Such individuals deserve appreciation, and I have no objection to them.
My concern lies with the second group, those who invoke Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam merely as a rhetorical tool to present Hinduism in a favourable light, while simultaneously endorsing caste discrimination, nurturing ambitions of a Hindu state through the exclusion or ethnic cleansing of minorities, and displaying selective solidarity with lower castes only to mobilise them against religious minority communities in India.
Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam is not attributed to any god or revered rishi but is spoken by a foolish Brahmin in a didactic tale. This raises a serious question about how it can be cited as proof of Hinduism’s commitment to universal brotherhood. It is difficult to reconcile such a claim with a religious tradition that institutionalises discrimination against its own Shudras and Chandalas. The phrase first appears in the Panchatantra, a collection of moral animal fables intended for children, and was later incorporated into the Mahopanishad. Hindus often quote the Mahopanishad to lend scriptural authority to the idea, while overlooking its narrative origin.
In effect, a line from a children’s fable, spoken by a character explicitly portrayed as foolish, is elevated as a defining moral principle of Hinduism. Notably, this idea is absent from the Vedas, Smritis, Puranas, and Itihasas. Considering that Hindu literature comprises roughly a million verses across four Vedas, numerous Smritis, eighteen major and eighteen minor Puranas, and the Ramayana and Mahabharata, the reliance on a single sentence from the Panchatantra is telling. The original story itself undercuts the ideal. Three learned Brahmins and one foolish Brahmin encounter a dead lion. The learned Brahmins resurrect it, and the lion promptly devours them, including the foolish Brahmin who proclaims Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, while the uneducated fourth Brahmin escapes. Through this narrative, Vishnu Sharma appears to suggest that viewing the entire world as one family is an act of foolishness. Yet this very sentence is selectively extracted, stripped of context, and repeatedly invoked to project Hinduism as a religion of universal brotherhood. A historian wrote,
“The most common Sanskrit phrase quoted in this regard, often repeated at popular gatherings, is ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbaka’, Which means, ‘the world is one family’. This assertion is recited as a signature of Hindu benevolence towards others and is often used to promote a spirit of unconditional generosity towards others. The earliest occurrences of ‘vasudhaiva kutumbakam’ are found in the Hitopadesa and the Panchatantra, which are collections of fables discussing practical situations in life through talking animals. These stories are meant as an entertaining educational aid for children, and their popularity has carried them to distant places across Asia and Europe.” Indra’s Net: Defending Hinduism’s, By Rajiv Malhotra, HarperCollins Publishers India, 14-Jan-2014
Now let us examine how much “universal brotherhood” actually emerges from Hindu scriptures. Far from promoting inclusivity, several texts explicitly prohibit a Dvija (twice-born) from residing in a land inhabited by Shudras, thereby enforcing social segregation at the level of geography itself.
Kurma Purana II.16.23-24 “On shall never stay in a village surrounded by unrighteous persons or afflicted by many pestilences. One shall never stay in the kingdom of a Sudra, or in a place inhabited by heretics. A Brahmana should not stay in any other except in the land between the mountains Himavan and the Vindhya and between the Eastern and Western oceans. [26-27] An excellent Brahmana shall not stay anywhere else except within half a Krosa of the holy river (1 Krosa=3 Km). He shall not stay near the village of the Sudras. He should not live in the same place with that of fallen castes, Candalas, Pukkasas, foolish fellows, arrogant persons, Sudras and the people of the lowliest castes called Antavasayins.” Tr. G.V. Tagare
Manu Smriti 4.61 Let him not dwell in a country where the rulers are Sudras, nor in one which is surrounded by unrighteous men, nor in one which has become subject to heretics, nor in one swarming with men of the lowest castes.
Manu Smriti 8.22. That kingdom where Sudras are very numerous, which is infested by atheists and destitute of twice-born (inhabitants), soon entirely perishes, afflicted by famine and disease.
Manu Smriti 2.21-24 That (country) which (lies) between the Himavat and the Vindhya (mountains) to the east of Prayaga and to the west of Vinasana (the place where the river Sarasvati disappears) is called Madhyadesa (the central region). But (the tract) between those two mountains (just mentioned), which (extends) as far as the eastern and the western oceans, the wise call Aryavarta (the country of the Aryans). That land where the black antelope naturally roams, one must know to be fit for the performance of sacrifices; (the tract) different from that (is) the country of the Mlekkhas (barbarians). Let twice-born men seek to dwell in those (above-mentioned countries); but a Sudra, distressed for subsistence, may reside anywhere.
The Skanda Purana goes further by recommending that one should reside only in a kingdom ruled by a Vaishnavite, reducing the ideal place of living not merely to caste hierarchy but also to sectarian allegiance.
Skanda Purana II.v.11.23-24 “Bharadvaja said: Well asked, O highly fortunate one, since you are a devotee of Visnu. The earth that you protect, O king, is blessed. The subjects (governed by you) are good (blessed). One shall not stay in that kingdom where the king is not a Vaisnava. Better to stay in a forest or in a Tirtha but not in a realm where there are no Vaisnavas.” Tr. G.V. Tagare
Non-Hindus are called Maleccha, Yavana and Demons
Swami Vijnananda writes in Devi Bhagavatam 4.24 ”Yavana means a Greek, an Ionian; then any foreigner, or barbarian (the word is applied at present to a Mahomedan or a European also).’Source
Chanakya Niti Shastra 8.5 “The wise who discern the essence of things have declared that the yavana (meat eater) is equal in baseness to a thousand candalas the lowest class), and hence a yavana is the basest of men; indeed there is no one more base.”
Vayu Purana I.48.31 “Sankhadvipa is ruled as a single kingdom extending to a hundred Yojanas. It is the abode of many Mleccha tribes.” Tr. G.V. Tagare, edited by G.P. Bhatt
Ganesh Vasudeo Tagare writes, “Sankha-dvipa is Zangistan of Arab geographers. It represents a part of the eastern shore of Africa from Abyssinia to Madargascar.
It shows that it were non-Aryan foreign tribes who were considered Mleccha. People living outside Aryavarta were considered Maleccha, Nastika (Atheist), Yavana, Rakshasa etc,
Garuda Purana I.55.17 “The people in the West are Strirajyas (governed by women) Saindhavas, Mlecchas, Atheists, Yavanas, Mathuras and Naisadhas.” Tr. Board of Scholars, edited by J.L. Shastri
Swami Prabhupada writes: “…An atheist is called a demon, and it is a fact that even a person born of good parents can turn into a demon by bad association…” Swami Prabhupada on Srimad Bhagavatam 3.3.6 Source
Hindu leaders called Muslims as Demons and descendants of Ravana.
Now imagine if such scriptures had been composed in a period when Muslims were present. They would almost certainly have been depicted as monsters with fiery appearances and evil traits.
What I am trying to demonstrate is that, in Hindu scriptures, terms such as demons (Rakshasas), Mlecchas, and Yavanas do not necessarily denote supernatural beings with monstrous forms, but are often used to refer to non-Hindus or those outside the Vedic social and religious order.
Swami Dayanand Saraswati wrote,
“The Dwijaas( the twice-born) – Braahmanaas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyaas are called Aryas, while the Shudras are called Anaryas, or Non-Aryas.”ATHARVA VEDA 19:62. In the face of these Vedic authorities how can sensible people believe in the imaginary tales of the foreigners. In the Devaasurawars, Prince Arjuna and King Dashratha and others of Aryavarta used to go to the assistance of the Aryas in order to crush the Asuras. This shows that the people living outside Aryavarta were called Dasyus and Malechhaas… Besides, Manu also corroborates our position. He says, “The countries other than Aryavarta are called Dasyus and Malechha countries.” MANU 10:45, 2:23. The people living in the north-east, north, north-west were called Rakshasas.” Satyarth Prakash, by Dayanand Saraswati, Ch 8, page 266, Tr. Chrinajiva Bhardwaja Source
If people living outside Aryavarta were labelled as Dasyus, and those inhabiting the north-east and north-west were described as Rakshasas (demons), then where have these people disappeared to? Why do archaeologists not find their fossils or physical remains? Swami Dayanand Saraswati offers an answer to this question. He wrote,
“You can still see that the description of Raakshasas given therein tallies with the ugly appearance of the negroes of today.” Satyarth Prakash, by Dayanand Saraswati, Ch 8, page 266, Tr. Chrinajiva Bhardwaja
He compared Rakshasas with present-day Negroes (black people). From this line, it can be ascertained that the people living in the north-east and north-west were not imagined as literal monsters but were indigenous populations described in an overtly racial and dehumanising manner.
Similarly, the fifteenth-century Hindu scholar Chaitanya Mahaprabhu uses the term Maleccha to refer explicitly to Muslims. Historians have also noted this usage, indicating that such labels were routinely applied to real human communities rather than to mythical beings.
“In classical works the natives of the west were called Mlechchhas- Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Part 18 By James Hastings, p.581
“foreigners were regarded as Mlechchhas or unclean.” Indian Hist (Opt) By Reddy p.B106
“Other rulers, such as the Shakas who came from Central Asia, were regarded as mlechchhas [By Brahmins] Source
“In Somadeva’s Kathasaritsagara, mleccha refers to Muslims. He found it advisable not to have a contact with mleccha. Much earlier, the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad injected the Aryans from travelling ‘to the ends of the world’. Neither should one learn mleccha language, nor visit their lands. Dharmasastras suggested it was not even desirable that foreign barbarians should learn Sanskrit.” Aspects of India’s International relations, 1700 to 2000, p.544, By Jayanta Kumar Ray, Pearson Education India, 2007
Maleccha is commonly translated as “foreigner” or “barbarian,” and even non-Hindu tribes residing within Aryavarta were classified as Anarya (non-Aryan) or Maleccha, indicating that such labels were applied broadly to internal as well as external communities.
Natya Shastra 13.151 “The Gait and movements of the men of different Mleccha tribes such as the Pulindas and the Sabaras should be made according to the lands they inhabit.
The Pulindas were a tribe located in present-day Madhya Pradesh, which demonstrates that the term Mleccha did not denote a specific tribe living outside Aryavarta but was instead used broadly to label non-Hindus, including communities residing within Aryavarta itself.
Hindu scriptures also refer to the Kikata tribe, identified as inhabiting regions corresponding to present day Bihar.
Nirukta 6.32 What are the cows doing in Kikata? Kikata is the name of a country where the non-Aryans dwell. Non-Aryan tribes are (so called because it is said),’What have they done? Or their assumption is that religious rites are useless. They neither get the milk to mix with the soma, nor kindle fire.
Association with Shudras and Malecchas is explicitly prohibited in several scriptural passages.
Padma Purana VII.14.1-10 “Vyasa said: A devotee of Visnu should devoutly worship the immutable Visnu along with the great Laksmi in Margasirsa, O best brahmana. So also he should not worship Visnu in a Mleccha region, in the house of a fallen person, or at a place full of bad odour, O best of Brahmana. He should not worship Visnu near the heretics or great sinners…” Tr. N.A. Deshpande
Brahmanda Purana 41 “Alliances and associations of the Sudras and Antyayonis (lowest born) with Brahmanas take place in the Kali Yuga, in regard to bed, seats and food stuffs.” Tr. G.V. Tagare
Kurma Purana I.30.6 “In Kaliyuga, the Sudras will have close association with the Brahmanas by the use of spells and incantations as well as through the sharing of beds, seats and food.” Tr. G.V. Tagare
It is also prohibited to travel to Maleccha countries,
Sankha Samhita 14.4 “A wise man should not celebrate a Sraddha ceremony either in a Mlechchha country, or at dawn, evening or night. He should not visit even a Mlechchha country.” Tr. Manmatha Nath Dutt
Vishnu Smriti 84.1-4 “Let not a man do a Sraddhay ceremony in a country of the barbarians. Let him not go to a country of the Barbarians…The country, in which there exists not the division of the four-fold social order, should be regarded as a country of the barbarians, otherwise it is Aryavarta (the land of the Aryas).” Tr. Manmatha Nath Dutt
Baudhyana Dharma Shastra Prasna 1, Adhyaya 1, Kandika 2.11-16 Now the Bhâllavins quote also the (following) verse: ‘In the west the boundary-river, in the east the region where the sun rises,–as far as the black antelopes wander (between these two limits), so far spiritual pre-eminence (is found).’ The inhabitants of Avantî, of Aṅga, of Magadha, of Surâshtra, of the Dekhan, of Upâvrit, of Sindh, and the Sauvîrâs are of mixed origin. He who has visited the (countries of the) Ârattas, Kâraskaras, Pundras, Sauvîras, Vaṅgas, Kaliṅgas, (or) Prânûnas shall offer a Punastoma or a Sarvaprishthâ (ishti). Now they quote also (the following verses): ‘He commits sin through his feet, who travels to the (country of the) Kaliṅgas. The sages declare the Vaisvânarî ishti to be a purification for him. ”Even if many offences have been committed, they recommend for the removal of the sin the Pavitreshti. For that (sacrifice) is a most excellent means of purification.’
Speaking with a Malecha or a low caste is prohibited.
Vishnu Smriti 64.14 And not speak with a member of any Mlechchha or low caste.
Kalki avatar kills many tribes,
Brahmanda Purana 1.2.31.77-84 “In the previous Svayambhuva Manvantara, he had been born of a part of Madhava (Visnu). For a full period of twenty years, he wandered over the Earth taking with him an army along with horses, chariots and elephants. Surrounded by hundreds and thousands of Brahmanas wielding weapons, he killed all the Mlecchas all round along with those kings, the heretics born of Sudra women. The lord exterminates those heretics. Everywhere he kills all those who are not scrupulously religious. The lord who was strong and who annihilated all the Mlecchas slew these also People who were born of parents of different castes, those who depended on them, the Udicyas (Notherners), Madhya Desyas (Persons of middle lands), Parvatiyas (Mountain-dweller), Pracyas (Easterners), Praticyas (Westerners), those who talk about on the ridges of the Vindya mountains, Daksinatyas (Southerners), Dravidas along with Simhalas (Ceylonese), Gandhara, Paradas, Pahlavas, Yavanas, Sakas, Tusaras. Barbaras, Cinas (Chinese), Sulikas, Daradas, Khasas, Lampa-karas, Katakas and different tribes of Kiratas. The powerful lord wielding the discuss slew all these barbarous people.” Tr. G.V. Tagare
The question arises whether all tribes were truly engaged in sinful activities such that Kalki is described as killing them indiscriminately. Regions such as Gandhara, corresponding to modern day Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in Pakistan, are historically identifiable. The Cina are widely recognised as the Chinese, and many other tribes mentioned in the texts are equally traceable through geography and historical records. It is therefore implausible to assume that entire populations across vast and diverse regions were uniformly immoral. Such narratives appear less as historical or ethical assessments and more as ideological constructs that justify violence against those defined as outsiders.
Hindus often cite another verse, ekam sat vipra bahudha vadanti, as an expression of religious tolerance, using it to claim that all religions are essentially the same. However, this interpretation is misleading. The verse does not state that all religions are equal or interchangeable, nor does it endorse pluralism in the modern sense. A closer reading of the complete verse from the Rig Veda reveals a far more limited and internally focused theological claim, one that is frequently removed from its original context to support contemporary narratives of inclusivity.
इन्द्रं मित्रं वरुणमग्निमाहुरथो दिव्यः स सुपर्णो गरुत्मान |
एकं सद विप्रा बहुधा वदन्त्यग्निं यमं मातरिश्वानमाहुः ||
Rig Veda 1.164.46 “They have styled (Him, God or the sun) Indra (the resplendent), Mitra (the surveyor), Varuna (the venerable), Agni (the adorable, and he is the celestial, well-winged garutmat (the great), for learned priests call one by many names as they speak of the adorable as yama (ordainer) and matarisvan (cosmic breath).” Tr. Svami Satya Prakash Sarasvati
As is evident, the verse nowhere speaks of tolerance toward other religions. Instead, it asserts the supremacy of a single deity, identified by Sayana as the Sun. Despite this, the verse is frequently invoked to argue that the Vedas promote monotheism, an interpretation that is equally inappropriate. The passage does not deny the existence of multiple deities, nor does it dissolve them into a universal god in the modern monotheistic sense.
Rather, the verse articulates a form of internal theological accommodation within Vedic religion. It suggests that deities such as Indra, Agni, Varuna, Mitra and others are all legitimate objects of worship, not because all religions are the same, but because these deities are understood as different manifestations or expressions operating within a single Vedic framework. The tolerance implied here is therefore confined to the internal diversity of Vedic belief and ritual, comparable to multiple channels flowing toward the same river, rather than an endorsement of religious pluralism across distinct and independent traditions.
